Fair
Enough, Anathema was
Fair
Enough, Anathema was too strong a word choice to be applied to
agriculture, in general.
(I,
too, once regarded you-tube as largely an entertainment medium, but
since have learned that it is an encyclopedic video-graphic
introduction to things I have yet to learn) Yet, aspects of
agriculture are affecting atmospheric composition and bio-mediated,
environmental services necessary for life, as we know it. But,
agriculture is the holy grail that made human progress possible, as
well.
Agricultural
necessity initiated the industrial revolution and advent of mining.
But agriculture can be so much more, if we place more emphasis on
understanding ecological linkages and attempt to collaborate with
life-mediating processes instead of applying expensive, quick-fix
herbicide/insecticide cocktails,-- I think we will do less damage,
generally, if we try to mimic time-tested, natural processes. The
internet essentially provides humans with what ants already have, but
consider the huge costs required to keep it afloat! So, let's
intensively study the interrelations of living things and apply what
we learn to agriculture.
The
thoroughness of the plowing of the American Mid-West leaves very few
examples of intact, tall and short-grass prairies – indeed what we
have are brought about largely by restorative efforts, – and let's
be thankful for that.
Yet,
if we look at negative anthropogenic effects to the environment, we
actually began affecting Nature, with the transition from
hunter/gathering to agriculture.
Paleolithic
man did, indeed, (from archaeological evidence) influence the
relatively recent extinctions of the Ice Age mammoths, mastodons and
great bison. We almost extinguished today's herds, and at the last
minute, have relatively few genetically pure examples remaining.
Commercial
fishing is still a form of hunting/gatherng and, -- technologically
is too, far advanced/successful, as it has reduced OCEAN fish stocks
by over 75%.
In
the Middle Ages, the Black Death killed millions of Europeans. Not
too many years later, we learned that we could control disease more
effectively by confining human waste to water and treating such
water.
But,
when we talk of preparing for accommodating billions more humans, --
and agriculture plays a huge role in this, there will need to be
other ways to treat organic wastes and save finite supplies of
non-polluted water.
Today,
there are myriads of integrative ways to solve problems and work
profitable ways around obstructing bottlenecks.
Passive
solar, for example, can be used to dry, and mostly sterilize organic
pollution, for fuel generation or soil organic (carbon sink) buildup.
Soil scientists inform us that conserving fertile soils is important
to national security. Yet, many nitrogenous compounds, generated by
agriculture and water treatment, flow down the Mississippi river to
spawn “dead zones” in the Gulf of Mexico each spring(I see this
as an opportunity to grow algae and produce bio-fuel!). World-wide,
dead zones are expanding in the oceans and they cover 70% of the
planet. Why do we have an area of floating plastics the size of
Texas? Can we make this into a resource to exploit?
Today,
I am concerned about contamination of sub-surface water supplies and
the teratogenic effects of pesticide and industrial effluent on
amphibians and fish. Negative effects on humans cannot be far
behind.
The
“butterfly effect” allows for a myriad of life proceses inside
organisms through complicated hormonal and organic processes to
occur.
But
outside of organisms, unintended anthropogenic side effects are still
having huge effects on planetary earth.
I
recall the human population time bomb essays in the sixties/seventies
–- that if one had something he really wanted to do, then he should
first address over-population, because that would effect all of his
other plans.
Today,
I see man locked in a monumental struggle with his arch rival, Nature.
But
at the same, I am excited by the myriad problem-solving,
profit-making, job-creating possibilities that exist if we explore
them in a prioritized, biologically-mediated, integrative,
collaborative, and thoughtful manner, for this ultimate phrase is the
one characteristic of man that begins to measure up to what drives
ecological processes every day.
--- On Mon, 8/31/09, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote:
From: William Silvert <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to
Ecology, Consider Permaculture
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, August 31, 2009, 10:05 AM
Wow, I have seldom seen such a high and mighty and snooty posting as this. I
don't know of any ecologists who are against agriculture as such, although
there may be some. I do know many who are concerned about agricultural
practices that lead to land erosion, pollution of groundwater, dangerous
reliance on monoculture, high costs in energy and water resources, and so on.
Surprisingly there are both good guys and bad guys in all fields.
So who are these guys who continue to spout the "agriculture is anathema"
rhetoric? Or are they just some fiction that =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?= has
decided to attack?
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G._Gramig?=
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Notwithstanding that Agriculture is Anathema to
Ecology, Consider Permaculture
> I always wonder if all the high and mighty ecologists who look down their
> noses at agriculture like to eat food? And if so, are they eating grubs and
> berries from their pristine research sites or are they eating food that was
> produced by farmers? Unless these snooty ecologists are 100% in the grub and
> berry camp, I suggest that their denigrating attitudes about agriculture are
> laughably hypocritical.
>
> Furthermore, agroecosystems comprise a large percentage of the earth's total
> land mass. This is unlikely to change, especially given the enormous
> pressures on resources that will increase as the world's population
> continues to increase. Enlightened ecologists already recognize the enormous
> importance of agroecoystems for protecting resources and conserving what is
> left of biodiversity.
>
> Anyone who continues to spout the "agriculture is anathema" rhetoric is
> merely lagging behind the cutting edge of ecological thought, in my humble
> opinion.
>
